Towards the Essence of Traditionalism

A while ago, I had in mind the idea of writing a research paper on traditionalism, where I would try to uncover current perspectives on the question 'what is traditionalism?' and then produce my own particular definition of the same.  Although this was on my mind for some time, the paper was not, so it, as many such projects of mine, got left by the wayside. As a consolation prize, therefore, I thought I might talk a bit about the meditations that led me first to think about this question.

In order to define traditionalism, there are two routes that one must take.  The first is practical. What do traditionalists do? Are there any universal characteristics for such a group of people? Then there is the theoretical. Why do traditionalists do what they do, and is there a good reason for them to do it? To what is traditionalism opposed and what is the opposite of traditionalism? Is the ground of traditionalism compatible with a single faith, given that it is such a particular movement. These are the questions that I believe must be answered by every critical thinker on the subject of traditionalism.

On the practical side, it would be easy to note that Catholic traditionalists have very little in common. Some advocate, for example, attending chapels that are not fully recognized by Rome, others do not.  Some people who define themselves as traditionalists attend Latin liturgies exclusively, others are willing to attend other services for just cause, and others merely for the sake of convenience. Some female traditionalists wear mantillas, others do not while acknowledging the wearing of mantillas to be the ideal.  Some are more in favor of renewing liturgical services to use Gregorian Chant more regularly, while others are simply in favor of returning to the way the Mass was being said customarily in the 1950's and '60's. The list of differences goes on and on.

Acknowledging that such differences exist, though, I think a broadly practical definition is possible. Traditionalists generally define themselves as such, and are defined by others as such, if they tend towards the re-incorporation of practices from before the 1960's, whether abrogated or made optional, and the promotion of what they perceive to be a uniquely Catholic culture.

This latter point is important. Although traditionalists are characterized by their attachment to liturgical forms common before the reform of the liturgy in the 1960's, they are quite distinct in their culture from, say, the average blue-collar Irish Catholic in the 1940's, or really at any time before that.  Instead, Catholic traditionalists, often adopting the distributist ethics of Chesterton and Belloc, and applying them in actual reality (which is unqiue in and of itself), often prefer rural settings, they are often to the extreme right in terms of economic and welfare policy, and often adopt lifestyles that are purposely opposed to that of most modern individuals. Any long experience with such groups will demonstrate the sort of home-spun simplicity which is common to many traditionalist families.

However, even as I point out the simple practical definition I have written above I realize that it is somewhat inadequate.  Most Catholics, in fact, from whatever persuasion, find themselves looking back to SOME practice that existed before the reform, and even, to a certain extent, define themselves by that bit of conservativism. I would argue that the distinction in culture, the creation, through various organizations, such as the FSSP, the SSPX, and so forth, that choose, in one way or another, to model themselves off of one another, is in fact the ONLY practical way to identify a singular movement that could be called "traditionalism." To put it bluntly, traditionalism has no central practices or characteristics that can define it as a separate movement, although various groups do try to claim the crown for their own particular organization. Rather, only the self-identification and corporate unity of such a group can really be called the traditionalist movement as it stands presently.

However, the second path that I mentioned above, the second goal of this discussion, must be to leave behind the practical identification of traditionalists, and try to deconstruct the social reality of traditionalism into one particular definition of the movement itself.  In so doing, we are not merely distilling the characteristics or dominant beliefs of such a group, but rather creating a paradigm by which groups of this sort may be both compared and judged. Why should we do this? Because, unless this essential philosophical work is done, the traditionalist movement, confined to the above practical definition has little or no value as a theological position to the Catholic Church. Dominicans do not offer themselves, their own existence, as an argument for or against the Church, nor do Franciscans. THAT they exist is no argument, and signifies nothing more than that God has, in his Providence, provided a particular means for those individuals salvation. However, it is in WHAT they are that makes them a real contribution to the theological vision of the Catholic Church, as witnesses of scholarship and poverty, of course.
Moreover, their movements are to be estimated in terms of WHO is the person contributing to the good of the Church by contributing to each movement. Thus, we could not leave out an estimation, a definition of the contribution of the Oratorians as a society without including the Ven. John Cardinal Newman. In that sense, whatever new definition of the term that we uncover (or is it rather an act of organization and categorization?) MUST include those who, in particular, are contributing to the Universal Church as a theological position and perspective. Here I would mention two names in particular as needing to be incorporated into that vision: Michael Davies and Archbishop Lefebvre. Since now, of course, we have moved from things to ideas, from bodies to concepts, there is little need to discuss the ecclesiastical actions of those individuals, except insofar as they are grounded in their particular ideas. Since, of course, this blog is not a research paper, I feel content to leave this statement as a prolegomenon to actual research into the ideas and statements of these two men, each great in their own way.

Another way to approach the definition of traditionalism is to try to define its opposites and those whom it opposes. That these are two different concepts is an important belief to settle upon from the outset. Imprisonment is opposed to crime, for example, or at least to public harm. That, however, is not intrinsic to a definition of the concept of "imprisonment." For, indeed, if prisons were merely defined as a state "whereby people are prevented from harming the public" we should have very little idea of the concept of a prison, and certainly no paradigm to compare one type of imprisonment with another. The opposite of "imprisonment," however,is "freedom." This gets more at the description of the thing in question, and less on its final goal.

So, what is traditionalism opposed to? Traditionalism is ideologically opposed to modernism, or the belief in a battery of different modern doctrines which were condemned as heresies by popes throughout the last few centuries. It does this by being the opposite of "progressivism," which, while being related temporally, is not able to be identified as modernism per se. Thus, while a traditionalist would be opposed to the purposed updating of liturgical rituals in the name of some ideological belief in progress, such updating would not necessarily be motivated by a belief in, say, the evolution of doctrine. Progressivism, however, is a key tool for the promotion of modern ideas, among which modernism is clearly to be numbered. Traditionalism therefore denies modernism an important tool for its propagation. In that regard, we should probably measure a traditionalist movement by its purposed contrariness to progressivism (not progress, I should mention, but a movement which promotes change in the name of progress, rather than believing that previous practices are sufficient for current problems), and value it based on how well it prevents and catechizes the Church against modernism.

I would, however, caution traditionalists with creating a false dichotomy between traditionalism and modernism.  Traditionalism, it is true, is an obstacle to modernism, but it is not its opposite.  An opposite must be mutually exclusive with its opposite. Thus, that someone is imprisoned does not mean that society cannot be harmed by that person. Rather, that society cannot be harmed by that person is an indication that someone has been imprisoned WELL. In the same way, that someone is a traditionalist does not mean that they are also clear of any modernist heresies, rather that they are clear of any modernist heresies would show that they are a GOOD traditionalist. I dare say the fallacies of modernism are present even in many traditionalist circles.

There are a number of other things I could say on this topic, but I think I will leave them for now. Does anyone else have anything to add? What is the relationship of the traditionalist movement to the hierarchy of the church, and to what extent do they rightfully seek recognition from the same? Etc.